AD-A251 282 Q

DETAILED PROJECT REPORTAND

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SECTION 14 EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION

SOAP CREEK DTICCOUNTY BRIDGE SITE NO. 3 EL,.TF

DAVIS COUNTY, IOWA c1

OCTOBER 1990

S92-14607

US Army Corpsof EngineersRock Island District

92 6 o .9 O I REVISED DECEMBER 190

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

ROCK ISLAND DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERSCLOCK TOWER BUILDING-P.O. BOX 2004

ROCK ISLAND. ILLINOIS 61204-2004

ATTETN OP:

CENCR- PD- F

DETAILED PROJECT REPORTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FORSECTION 14 EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION

SOAP CREEK 0COUNTY BRIDGE SITE NO. 3 ie "),

DAVIS COUNTY, IOWA

Ac*.* Si Fo

j t I f_,y *a t I 0""I

SAv~llaltlltT Code

, .... a+ l l a,,d/orDist Special

OCTOBER 1990

(REVISED DECEMBER 1990)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Many members of the Rock Island District assisted in the preparation ofthis report. Primary study team personnel who are familiar with thetechnical aspects of the study are listed below:

STUDY MANAGEMENT:Sherry Lpqck-

HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS: )c~±.k~L~Marvin Martens

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS: -___-" _" ____

Louise Zawlocki

Ruth Danford-

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: .. Z--' -I' j / 'i '-

A ordn (

CULTURAL RESOURCES: /6L 6/Ron Pulcher

LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT COORDINATION: _ ._ _ _ _

Robert Lazgnb

ENGINEERING AND DESIGN: C7 LJi- C{--

C. David Borck

*WE'RE PROUDTO SIGN

US Army Corps OUR WORKof EngineersRock Island District

III. . . . ..LL . . .. I I . . . . . i_ q r.i. . .

SYLLABUS

This report addresses the problem of streambank erosion on Soap Creek at

County Bridge Site No. 3 in sec. 21, T. 70 N., R. 15 W., Marion Township,Davis County, Iowa. The study area, which is located on both abutments ofthe bridge, involves approximately 200 linear feet of bankline.

Under the authority of Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as

amended, Rock Island District representatives made a site visit to DavisCounty, Iowa, in March 1990 to investigate the severity of the erosion at

several bridges in the county.

This Detailed Project Report recommends that riprap be placed around theabutments and wingwalls of County Bridge No. 3. This protection shouldextend beyond the abutments in both directions. Additional toe protectionand end protection will be used on both sides of the creek banklines.Approximately 1,800 tons of riprap will be placed to the top of the bank toprovide a minimum 1:V on 2:H slope. The total estimated cost for the

project is $50,000, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3.3. The projectsatisfies the criteria for Federal participation and is recommended forconstruction.

DETAILED PROJECT REPORT

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFOR

SECTION 14 EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION

SOAP CREEK

COUNTY BRIDGE SITE NO. 3

DAVIS COUNTY, IOWA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subi ect Pare

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1

Study Request 1Study Authority 1Study Scope 2

Study Area 2Detail of Investigation 2

Related Studies, Reports, and Existing Water Projects 2

SECTION 2 - PLAN FORMULATION 3

Public Concerns 3Existing Conditions 3Future Conditions Without Project 3

Planning Objectives 3National Objectives 3Specific Objectives 4

Planning Constraints 4Alternative Solutions 4

Selected Plan 4

Hydraulic Analysis and Bank Protection Design 5

Environmental Assessment 7

Real Estate Requirements 10

Economic Evaluation 11Cost Apportionment 16

Ability to Pay Analysis 17Financial Analysis 18

SECTION 3 - PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 18

Corps of Engineers 18Coordination 18Davis County 18

SECTION 4 - RECOMMENDATION 21

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

' ' ' ' ' 'I I I I

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

List of Tables

No. Title Pae

1 Analysis of 1990 Average Annual Traffic 12

2 Summary of Vehicle Operating Costs 133 Summary of Opportunity of Time Costs 14

4 Annual Detour Costs 145 Detailed Estimate of Construction Costs 15

6 Summary of Benefits and Costs 167 Cost Apportionment 17

8 Ability to Pay Analysis 17

List of Plates

No. Title

1 General Location and Vicinity Maps2 Plan, Section, and End Protection3 Cross Sections at Bridge Abutments4 Discharge-Frequency Curve

List of Appendixes

A - Pertinent Correspondence

DISTRIBUTION LIST

ii

DETAILED PROJECT REPORT

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFOR

SECTION 14 EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION

SOAP CREEK

COUNTY BRIDGE SITE NO. 3DAVIS COUNTY, IOWA

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION

STUDY REQUEST

In a letter dated January 18, 1990, the Davis County, Iowa, Board ofSupervisors, represented by the County Engineer, requested assistance from

the Rock Island District under the authority provided by Section 14 of the1946 Flood Control Act, as amended. The request was in regard to erosion

along the north and south bridge abutments at County Bridge Site No. 3 inMarion Township at Soap Creek. This bridge is an important farm market

route used by local farmers in the northwestern portion of the county.

Rock Island District representatives visited the site to determine theseverity of erosion and what could be done to control the erosion which

is threatening the integrity of the bridge.

The Rock Island District informed the Davis County Engineer on February 26,

1990, that a study was being initiated to determine the economic feasi-bility of providing erosion protection for the county bridge located acrossSoap Creek, in sec. 21, T. 70 N., R. 15 W., Marion Township, Davis County,

Iowa.

STUDY AUTHORITY

The authority for this study and report is Section 14 of the 1946 FloodControl Act, as amended by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.The authority, as amended, states:

That the Secretary of the Army is authorized to allot fromany appropriations heretofore and hereinafter made forflood control, not to exceed $12,500,000 per year, forthe construction, repair, restoration, and modificationof emergency streambank and shoreline protection works toprevent damages to highways, bridge approaches, publicworks, churches, hospitals, schools, and other nonprofitpublic services, when in the opinion of the Chief ofEngineers such work is advisable: Provided, that no morethan $500,000 shall be allotted for this purpose at anysingle locality from the appropriations for any one fiscalyear.

STUDY SCOPE

STUDY AREA

The study area, as shown on plate 1, is located on Soap Creek, sec. 21,T. 70 N., R. 15 W., Marion Township, approximately 11 miles northwest ofBloomfield, Iowa. Soap Creek is a highly meandering stream, with adrainage area of approximately 97.3 square miles at the bridge site. Thearea is agricultural and timber, with soils that are a sandy, silty typeand very susceptible to scouring at the toe of the bank, causing upper bankfailure. Flood conditions, such as the county has experienced duringsummer 1990, are contributing to the erosion around and under the bridgeabutments at the Soap Creek bridge.

DETAIL OF INVESTIGATION

This emergency Detailed Project Report (DPR) and Environmental Assessmentis intended to serve as the decision document, with sufficient detail toallow approval of the project and initiation of the preparation of plansand specifications.

RELATED STUDIES. REPORTS. AND EXISTING WATER PROJECTS

Studies presently are being funded by the Corps of Engineers to assess theeconomic feasibility of protecting bridge abutments located at three otherareas in Davis County.

2

SECTION 2 - PLAN FORMULATION

PUBLIC CONCERNS

The Davis County Engineer has been concerned about continued erosion atCounty Bridge Site No. 3 abutments on Soap Creek. The county has madeyearly efforts to protect all of the county bridges with riprap or broken

concrete. They have modified some bridges by extending the spans on either

end or have replaced several bridges. Erosion and bank instability havebeen recurrent problems, but funds are not readily available for providing

lasting protection at every site.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

A 2-inch rainfall in the Soap Creek drainage area causes extremely highvelocity flows which do not subside for approximately 2 to 3 days. The

creek is very flashy and destructive. The bridge piers are checkedannually for accumulated debris, and the county cleans the large debris

from the channel to prevent damages to the bridge piers and abutments. The

county also provides some degree of protection at each abutment, but it isvery difficult to keep up with damages because of the number of bridges for

which the county is responsible. The county has replaced two major bridges

within the past 2 years.

FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT

The erosion rate (5 feet per year since 1982) was determined by analyzingaerial photos received from the county engineer and recent survey data

obtained by the Corps of Engineers. If no action is taken, the integrityof the County Bridge Site No. 3 will be threatened. If rainfall continuesto occur at the rate that it has this year, there is a strong possibility

that the bridge abutments will be undercut and cause the bridge to fail

beyond repair.

PLANNING OBJECTIVES

NATIONAL OBJECTIVES

The plan formulation process to accomplish flood damage reduction isformulated and directed by a national planning objective consistent with

protecting the Nation's environment pursuant to national environmental

3

statutes, applicable Executive Orders, and other Federal planningrequirements.

Water and land-related resources project plans are formulated to alleviateproblems and to take advantage of opportunities in ways that contribute tothat objective.

Contributions to the National Economic Development (NED) are increases inthe net value of the national output of goods and services, expressed inmonetary units. Contributions to NED are the direct benefits that accruein the planning area and the rest of the nation, and include increases inthe net value of those goods and services that are marketed, and those thatmay not be marketed.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

Specific objectives include preventing economic losses due to failure ofthe Davis County Bridge Site No. 3 and minimizing adverse impacts of flooddamage reduction measures on the resources.

PLANNING CONSTRAINTS

This study is constrained by all laws of the United States and the Stateof Iowa, all Executive Orders of the President, and all engineering regula-tions of the Corps of Engineers. This study also is constrained by thestudy authority as stated in Section I of this report.

ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

Three alternatives were considered in detail to curtail the erosion inthe study area: (1) strategic placement of jetties or hard points; (2)concrete-filled mattress protection; (3) and riprapping around the bridgeabutments.

SELECTED PLAN

Analysis revealed that the riprap alternative along the bank and aroundthe abutments of the bridge would be least costly, maximizes net benefits,and has sponsor approval. This alternative would effectively control thesevere erosion and scouring which is threatening the integrity of thecounty bridge crossing Soap Creek.

4

The proposed work consists of clearing the bankline and placing riprapalong both bridge abutments and wingwalls. The riprap would extend oneither side of the abutments, and upper end protection would be providedto prevent undercutting of the project. The riprap would extend beyondthe toe of the bank for additional bank protection (see plate 2).

Approximately 1,800 tons of riprap would be placed at the project site.The total estimated amount of material to be placed beneath the calculatedOrdinary High Water (OHW) elevation of 723.0 feet National GeodeticVertical Datum (NGVD) is 0.74 cubic yard per linear foot of river bank.

The local sponsor, the Davis County Board of Supervisors, will be respon-sible for cost-sharing construction of the project and 100 percent of theoperation and maintenance of the completed project, as required by theWater Resources Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662.

HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS AND BANK PROTECTION DESIGN

Flow Analysis

Flow-frequency relationships were developed for Soap Creek at a roadcrossing in sec. 21, T. 70 N., R. 15 W., Davis County. Plate I shows thelocation of the study site. The drainage area at this site is about 97.3square miles. A discharge-frequency relationship at this site was computedusing the Iowa regression equations published in the U.S. Geological SurveyWater Resources Investigation Report 87-4132 entitled, Method for Esti-mating the Magnitude and Frequency of Floods at Ungaged Sites on Unregu-lated Rural Streams in Iowa. The discharge-frequency curve is shown onplate 4.

The 100-year flood (the flood with a 1 percent chance of occurring in anyyear) is 13,918 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, the bank-fulldischarge of 3,500 cfs was selected as the design flow. The boundary shearwas computed using the following equation.

G - Unit weight of water

(62.4 pcf)V - Velocity - 3.4 fps

To - GV2 D50 - Stone diameter .58(32.6 logl0 1.2y)2 y - Flow depth - 13 ft.

D50

The problem area is located in a relatively straight reach of stream;therefore, a bend coefficient was not calculated. Using a nonuniform flowfactor of 1.5, the local boundary shear used for the design would be(1.5)(0.114) - 0.17 psf.

5

Bank Protection Evaluation

The riprap design shear for a 12-inch layer at a slope of I:V on 2:H and aD50 of 0.58 foot was calculated to be 1.71 psf using the followingequations:

Ts - Side slope design shearTo - T ( 1 - sin c2 ) c- Side slope angle (26.6)

sin d2 d - Angle of repose (40)T - Channel bottom design

shear

T - a (Gs - G) D50 a - 0.040

D50 - 0.58 ft.Gs - Unit stone weight

(165 pcf)

From the preceding shear analysis, a 12-inch riprap layer should providemore than adequate protection from future bank erosion. The requiredriprap design gradation was determined in accordance with procedures inEM 1110-1601 and ETL 1110-2-120. The following is the required minimumriprap gradation:

Percent Lighter by Limits ofWeight Stone wt., lbs.

100 86-3550 26-1715 13-05

Any riprap placed under water should be 18 inches thick. The riprapblanket should extend beyond the toe of the bank, and the ends of theblanket should extend beyond the limits of existing erosion. A beddinglayer 6 inches thick should be provided under the riprap. Experience atother projects has indicated that Iowa Class D riprap at a thickness of18 inches also would provide adequate protection at this site. If Class Driprap is selected, it should be a material meeting the following sizelimitations:

Minimum % Larger Than Stone wt.. lbs.

0 25050 9090 5

No more than 5 percent shall pass the 1/2-inch sieve.

A riprap design also was completed using the methodology presented in the

March 1990 working draft of EM 1110-2-1601 and the Waterways ExperimentStation publication TR HL-88-4. The basic equation for the representative

6

required stone size, D30 (the riprap size of which 30 percent is finer byweight), in a straight or curved channel is as shown below.

D30 - 1.2(.3)y [( Gs )5 ( V2T ).5]2.5

Gs-G TsAy

Where A - the acceleration of gravity and other terms areas previously defined.

This method results in a D30 of 0.13 foot which is consistent with theolder method presented previously, and indicates that a layer thicknessof 12 inches is more than adequate.

As a means of comparison, jetties or hard points were considered as analternative protection method. Since the purpose of this project is toprotect the bridge abutments in conjunction with a relatively short lengthof the streambank requiring protection, riprap placement is the recommendedalternative.

The concrete-filled mattress design was based on general specificationsand recommendations by the manufacturer. The resulting protection shouldbe a 4-inch-thick articulating type mattress placed on a filter fabricblanket on a I:V on 2:H slope and should cover the entire slope of theexisting bank according to the manufacturer's specifications. This designis adequate to stabilize the banks for flow velocities up to approximately10 feet per second and design wave heights up to 1.3 feet.

Ordinary High Water (OHW) Elevation

The OW elevation corresponds to the 25 percent duration flow. The 25percent duration flow was determined to be 40 cfs. This value was obtainedfrom a synthetic relationship developed for the State of Iowa by the Corpsof Engineers based on 113 gaging stations. It is estimated that this flowwould result in a depth of about 1.5 feet or a water surface elevation ofabout 723.0 feet NGVD at this site.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Purpose and Alternatives

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to evaluate theimpacts of various measures proposed to prevent the failure, due toerosion, of County Bridge Site No. 3 over Soap Creek. The alternativesconsidered included reshaping and riprapping of the creek bank or placinga concrete mattress with extra riprap toe protection. The selected plan,

7

bank reshaping and riprapping, is described in detail in Section 2 of thisreport.

An environmental review of the selected alternative indicates that therewould be no significant effects on the environment, with any effects beingshort-term and minor. Thus, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) willnot be prepared. Because the proposed action meets the criteria for aNationwide Permit at 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(13), Clean Water Act, a Section 404Water Quality Certification will not be required.

Relationship to Environmental Requirement

The proposed action would comply with Federal environmental laws, executiveorders and policies, and State and local laws and policies including theClean Air Act, as amended; the Clean Water Act, as amended; the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973, as amended; the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of1958, as amended; the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1966, asamended; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended;Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; and Executive Order 11990,Protection of Wetlands.

The proposed action would not result in the conversion of farmland tononagricultural uses; therefore, the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981does not apply to this project. Because Soap Creek is not a federallyrecognized wild or scenic river, the project would not conflict with theprovisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968.

Environmental Setting

Soap Creek, a tributary of the Des Moines River System, flows in a gen-erally southeasterly direction through the south-central portion of Iowa.The project is located on both banks of the creek, and the surroundinglandscape is primarily agricultural fields with some wooded edges.

Natural Resources

The project site is located on both sides of the creek channel. Substrateat this point is primarily sand and silt. A detailed description ofexisting conditions at the project site was given earlier in this section.

Vegetation along the streambank consists of a mixture of grasses and forbswith a few woody shrubs on the lower portion of the slope. This habitatwould provide limited food and cover for wildlife species which utilizeriparian and open-field edge areas.

8

One federally recognized endangered species, the Indiana bat (Myotissodalis), is listed for this area. Suitable habitat for the Indiana bat(loose bark on trees) is not found at the project site. For this reason,no impacts to this species are expected to result from the proposed action.

Environmental Effects

No significant adverse impacts would result from construction of theproposed project. Temporary disturbances to local wildlife may occurduring the construction phase. However, the existing conditions alongthe project reach are of little value to wildlife that may be present.

Some minor loss of benthic organisms may result from construction of theproposed project. However, after placement of riprap is completed, theaffected area should quickly recolonize. Any impacts to the river systemduring the construction phase of the project would be minor and offset bythe ultimate preservation of the creek bank. The proposed project wouldreduce erosion of the creek bank and siltation of the channel, alleviatingthe possibility of the bridge collapsing.

Temporary increases in turbidity may occur during project construction,but levels of turbidity would return to pre-construction levels or lowersince sediments would no longer be eroding into the river system. In addi-tion, noise levels would increase and air quality would decrease during theconstruction phase. However, these are minor impacts and would notpermanently affect the area.

Cultural Resources

Inspection of the banklines, 200 feet upstream and downstream from thebridge, revealed no cultural resource sites. One shovel cut was necessaryon the bank northwest of the bridge. This cut reached from the top of thebank to approximately 70 cm and revealed a uniform, overbank deposit ofapparent recent origin.

Pedestrian survey was conducted in two field areas near the bridge. Thearea on the north bank northwest of the bridge measured 30 feet by 275feet, was plowed, well rainwashed, and had a ground visibility of 100percent. The area east of the bridge measured 30 feet by 200 feet and hadthe same ground conditions as the former area, with the exception of asmall area of soybean stubble at its northern end where ground visibilitywas 50 percent. No cultural resource sites were found. The pedestriansurvey covered approximately 0.40 acre at this location.

The south bank was more heavily disturbed than the north bank because ofriprap and fill associated with earlier construction.

9

In a letter dated April 2, 1990, the Iowa State Historic PreservationOfficer found that the project would affect no historic properties.

Social and Economic Effects of the Proposed Plan

The socioeconomic impacts associated with providing streambank erosionprotection for the affected Davis County, Iowa, bridge would be positive.The project would provide for continued use of the bridge and affectedroadway, which serves as the primary access between Lake Wapello State Parkand Stephens Forest. The project would help maintain community cohesion,by sustaining an important access route between these recreation areas. Inaddition, the project would require no residential relocations and wouldresult in no impacts to community or regional growth.

Public facilities and services would benefit from reduced damages fromflood-related erosion. The affected Davis County bridge would not fail,and relocation or early replacement of the facility would be avoided. Theproject also would maintain access between two important public recreationareas. In addition, the project would eliminate potential life, health,and safety threats associated with erosion-induced failure of the roadway.

The project would help to maintain current property values and related taxrevenues for the properties serviced by the roadway. Project constructionwould not noticeably impact employment or the Davis County labor force. Nochanges in business or industrial activity would be noticed during or afterproject construction, and no business or farm relocations would berequired.

Heavy machinery would generate temporary increases in noise levels duringconstruction. Noise disturbances to residents, businesses, or recreation-ists would be minimal, but increased noise levels would temporarily impactwildlife in the vicinity. The aesthetics of the affected riverfrontproperty would not be adversely impacted, as the current shoreline is badlyeroded and features little vegetative cover.

REAL ESTATE REQUIREMENTS

Davis County owns right-of-way at the study site to maintain the facilityand to clear debris from the creek; therefore, no credit can be given tothe sponsor for lands already in their possession. The area required forpermanent right-of-way is less than .5 acre and will be addressed in theplans and specifications portion of this study.

10

ECONOMIC EVALUATION

Methodology

This study assesses the feasibility of providing protective actionnecessary to curtail bank erosion along Soap Creek in Davis County, Iowa.The erosion is threatening the abutments of County Bridge Site No. 3 whichis located approximately 11 miles northwest of Bloomfield in central DavisCounty. The bank has eroded to the bridge abutments, and failure isimminent. Without protective action, high water in the spring of 1991is expected to cause failure of the bridge.

The annual benefits and costs of the action were computed using November1990 price levels and an 8-7/8 percent discount rate. The period ofanalysis is 38 years (remaining life of bridge) and assumes that thehistoric rate of erosion has been approximately 5 feet per year since1982. The historic erosion rate was determined by comparing recent Corpsof Engineers survey data to historical data furnished by the Davis CountyEngineer.

Benefits of Protective Action

The benefits of protective action are derived from a consideration of whatwould occur if no action were taken. Four potential categories of benefitswere examined: (1) detour; (2) maintenance costs; (3) land loss; and (4)redevelopment.

(1) Detour Costs. Without protective action, the erosion on the bridgeabutments due to flash flooding during the rainy season could cause failureof the bridge during the project base year (1991), closing it to traffic.Motorists would be forced to use a longer, alternate route until the countycould repair the erosion damage and reopen the bridge in year 3. Motoristsusing the detour route in years 1 and 2 would incur additional expensesrelated to costs for operating vehicles and opportunity of time costs.Benefits derived from avoided detour costs were computed based on thefollowing:

(a) In 1990, the average daily traffic count on the bridge was75 vehicles, as reported by the Davis County Engineer. This average dailytraffic is broken down in table 1 by vehicle type, detour days per year,and average number of trips per detour day.

11

TABLE 1

Analysis of 1990 Average Annual Traffic

DetourDays Average Daily Total Annual

Vehicle Tye Per Year Number of Tris Number of Trips

Passenger Cars 365 67 24,455Heavy Trucks 309 3 927School Buses 180 6 1,080Mail Vehicles 302 1 302Farm Machinery 123 2 246Emergency Vehicles 365 1 365

Total Annual Number of Trips for All Vehicles - 27,375

27,375 - 75 vehicles/day365 Days

(b) The most direct detour route would necessitate that an addi-tional 10 miles be driven, or 20 miles round trip. Other combinations ofdetour routes would further increase detour mileage. At an average speedof 40 mph, the detour route would require an additional 0.25 hour fortravel each way.

(c) Mail vehicles, farm machinery, and heavy trucks would have nopassengers other than the driver. Passenger cars would have an average of2 persons; emergency vehicles would have 2 occupants. School buses wouldhave a driver and an average busload of 16 passengers.

(d) The 1990 average variable cost for operating passenger carsand mail vehicles is approximately $0.27/mile; buses, emergency vehicles,and heavy trucks $0.57/mile; and farm machinery $0.98/mile. These figuresare based on average maintenance, repair, accessory, tire, fuel, and oilcosts, including taxes on gasoline, oil, and tires.

(e) The opportunity cost of time is the value of work or leisureactivities foregone for travel purposes. For passenger cars, the value oftime for adults and children was assumed to equal 1/3 and 1/12 of theaverage hourly general wage rate, respectively. The Bloomfield, Iowa, area1990 average hourly wage rate is approximately $7.30, with 39 percent ofthe area residents being under the age of 18. Therefore, the opportunitycost of time for passenger cars was assumed to be $1.72 per hour peroccupant.

($7.30 x 0.61 x 1/3 + $7.30 x 0.39 x 1/12 - $1.72)

(f) Approximate hourly wage rates were used as values of time forschool bus drivers ($5.32), mail carriers ($12.00), emergency vehicledrivers ($8.34), farm machinery operators ($5.70), and heavy truck

12

operators ($6.50). School buses require an opportunity cost of timeamounting to $15.05 per hour for I driver and 16 children.

($5.32 + $7.30 x 1/12 x 16 - $15.05)

(g) As shown in tables 2 and 3, detour costs resulting fromincreased vehicle operating costs and opportunity of time costs amount to$82,800 and $18,100, respectively. The total benefit of avoiding thesedetour costs in years 1 and 2 is $16,500, as shown in table 4.

TABLE 2

Summary of Vehicle Olerating CostsResulting from a 1-Year Road Detour

TotalExtra Total Operating Operating

Mileage Annual Number Cost Per Cost PerPer Day of Trips Mile ($) Year ($)Vehicle Type (A) I(B) (C) (A x B x C)

Passenger Cars 10 24,455 0.27 66,029Heavy Trucks 10 927 0.57 5,284School Buses 10 1,080 0.57 6,156Mail Vehicles 10 302 0.27 815Farm Machinery 10 246 0.98 2,411Emergency Vehicles 10 365 0.57 2,081

Total Cost ($): 82,776(rounded) 82,800

1 One-way detour mileage is 10 miles.

13

TABLE 3

Summary of Opportunity of Time CostsResulting From a 1-Year Road Detour

TotalTraveler Total Annual Opportunity Opportunity

Time Per Trip Number of Time Cost Time Costin Hours Trips Per Hour ($) Per Year($)

Vehicle Type (A) . L(B) (C) (A x B x C)

Passenger Cars 0.25 24,455 1.72 10,516Heavy Trucks 0.25 927 6.50 1,506School Buses 0.25 1,080 15.05 4,064Mail Vehicles 0.25 302 12.00 906Farm Machinery 0.25 246 5.70 351Emergency Vehicles 0.25 365 8.34 761

Total Cost ($): 18,104(rounded) 18,100

TABLE 4

Annual Detour Costs(8-7/8 Discount Rate, 38-Year Period of Analysis,

November 1990 Price Levels)

Total Present ValueDetour Cost Present Worth of of Detour Costs

Year (S) $1 Per Period (S)

1 100,900 0.91847 92,7002 100,900 0.84361 82,100

Total Value of Discounted Detour Costs ($): 174,800Annualized Detour Costs ($) (CRF - 0.094240): 16,500

(2) Road Maintenance. Closure of the county bridge would result inno change in road maintenance costs. The annual maintenance cost for thedetour route would increase by a dollar amount equal to the decrease inmaintenance costs for the closed roadway, as explained by the Davis CountyEngineer.

(3) Land Loss. Benefits derived from avoided land loss are notapplicable in this instance.

(4) Redevelopment Benefits. Davis County, Iowa, does not qualify forredevelopment benefits.

14

(5) Total Benefit. The total benefits from providing streambank

erosion protection are $16,500.

Cost of Recommended Action

The Rock Island District identified the least-cost alternative for pro-tecting the county bridge from failure caused by erosion around the bridgeabutment. The study recommends placing riprap along 200 linear feet of thebankline. The bank also would be covered with a minimum of 18 inches ofriprap to protect the abutments and wingwalls of the bridge. This actionis required to prevent further erosion and to guard against undercutting.The preventive action has an estimated total first cost of $50,000.

Detailed project first costs and average annual costs, computed at an8-7/8 percent discount rate over a 38-year period of analysis, are shownin table 5. Annual operation and maintenance costs were calculated basedon the proportion of riprap that would be replaced annually. As a resultof the short construction period, no interest during construction wascalculated. A summary of benefits and costs for the recommended action isshown in table 6. As indicated, an erosion protection project along thestreambank of Soap Creek in Davis County, Iowa, is economically feasibleand represents the National Economic Development plan.

TABLE 5

Detailed Estimate of Construction Costs(December 1990 Price Levels)

Unit Total Unit

Item Quantity Unit Cost (M) Cost (S)

Riprap 1,820 ton 17.50 31,050Bank Preparation .5 acre 2,000 1,000Clear and Haul Spoil 100 CY 15.00 1,500

Subtotal 33,550Contingencies 8,450

Subtotal 42,000Engineering and Design 5,000

Supervision and Administration 3,000

Total Project Cost: $50,000

15

TABLE 6

Summary of Benefits and Costs

(8-7/8 Percent Discount Rate, 38-Year Period of Analysis)(November 1990 Price Levels)

Description Amount

Project First Cost $50,000

Annualized First Cost $ 4,600

Annual Maintenance Cost 300

Total Annual Cost $ 4,900

Average Annual Benefits $16,500Net Benefits $11,600

Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 3.3

Sensitivity Analysis

Benefits accruing from a flash flood erosion protection project would besensitive to the year in which the bridge would fail. City recordsindicate that the historic rate of erosion has been approximately 5 feetper year since 1982, and failure of the bridge would occur during theproject base year (1991). Sensitivity analysis indicates that the projectwould be economically feasible even if the bridge did not fail until year10 of the 38-year analysis. This analysis assumes that the county wouldsecure funds to perform repairs necessary to reopen in year 3. However,the county engineer indicated that funds for the bridge replacement (with-out project conditions) are currently unavailable. If no erosion protec-tion were provided and the county were unable to obtain funds for thebridge replacement, the bridge detour would extend beyond year 2, andproject benefits would increase. No adjustment has been made to accountfor increased vehicle operating expenses resulting from higher fuel costssince August 1990.

COST APPORTIONMENT

Project cost-sharing is in accordance with the Water Resources DevelopmentAct of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) and applicable regulations. Total costapportionment for this project is shown in table 7.

16

TABLE 7

Cost Apportionment

Estimated Total Project Cost - $50,000

Non-Federal

Estimated Total Project Cost $50,00025 percent cost-share x 0.25

Total Non-Federal Cash Contribution $12,500

Federal

Estimated Total Project Cost $50,000

Less Non-Federal Share -12,500

Total Federal Cost $37,500

ABILITY TO PAY ANALYSIS

Section 103 of Public Law 99-662 requires the Corps of Engineers to evalu-

ate a local sponsor's ability to pay the required non-Federal costs of a

project. The county does not qualify for a reduced cost-sharing formula.

The analysis is based on the project benefit-to-cost ratio and the project

area per capita income, as shown in table 8.

TABLE 8

Ability to Pay Analysis

Annual Cost $ 4,900 Costs and benefits

Annual Benefits 16,500 for flood control

Total Cost 50,000Local Share 12,500Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 3.3 Sum of State andState Factor 91.39 County must beCounty Factor 73.64 less than 163.2.Sum is 165.03

Not Qualified

Base Benefits Floor 83% 1/4 Benefit-to-

% Local Share 25% Cost RatioEF -0.16 Eligibility Factor

17

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Davis County, Iowa, the local sponsor, is willing and able to pay its share

of the project cost. Funding for the county's share would be obtained fromtheir county roads fund and is available or can be readily obtained when

needed.

SECTION 3 - PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

This report will be processed for approval of the selected plan of actionand the authorization of funding for construction. Upon approval and

appropriation of funding by the Office of the Chief of Engineers, the Rock

Island District will be responsible for the preparation of plans andspecifications and the construction of the project.

COORDINATION

Details of the proposed project have been coordinated with the following

Federal, State, and local agencies:

Davis County, Iowa

Iowa Department of Natural ResourcesIowa State Historical Department, Office of Historic Preservation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Records of correspondence with members of these agencies can be found in

Appendix A - Pertinent Correspondence.

DAVIS COUNTy

In compliance with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, the county will, prior

to the advertisement of any construction contract for the project, enter

into a Local Cooperation Agreement with the Government, whereby the county

pledges to act as local sponsor for the proposed project and carry out the

following responsibilities:

a. Provide during the period of construction a cash contribution of

5 percent of total project costs.

18

b. Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and dredgedmaterial disposal areas, and perform all relocations of utilities andfacilities (excluding railroad bridges and approaches thereto) determinedby the Government to be necessary for construction of the project.

c. If the value of the contributions provided under paragraphs a. andb. above represents less than 25 percent of total project costs, the countyshall provide, during the period of construction, an additional cashcontribution in the amount necessary to make its total contribution equalto 25 percent of total project costs.

d. Hold and save the Government free from all damages arising from theconstruction, operation, and maintenance of the project, except for damagesdue to the fault or negligence of the Government or its contractors.

e. Operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the completedproject, or functional portion of the project, in accordance withregulations or directions prescribed by the Government.

f. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform RelocationAssistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law91-646, as amended by Public Law 100-17, and the Uniform Regulationscontained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, and rights-of-way for construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of theproject, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies,and procedures in connection with said Act.

g. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations,including Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, PublicLaw 88-352, and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuantthereto and published in Part 300 of Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations,as well as Army Regulation 600-7, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basisof Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by theDepartment of the Army."

h. Contribute all project costs in excess of the Federal statutorylimitation of $500,000.

In addition, the county must grant the Government a right to enter, atreasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon land which it owns orcontrols for access to the project for the purpose of inspection and forthe purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, orrehabilitating the project if such inspection shows that the county for anyreason is failing to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement and haspersisted in such failure after a reasonable notice in writing by theGovernment, delivered to the county. No completion, operation, mainte-nance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation by the Government in suchevent shall operate to relieve the county of responsibility to meet itsobligations as set forth in the Agreement or to preclude the Governmentfrom pursuing any other remedy at law or equity.

19

The county has stated in a letter of assurance, dated September 20, 1990,that they have reviewed the form Local Cost Sharing Agreement and arewilling and able to pay their share of the total project costs. Sufficientfunds are available through the county's road use budget, and the cashpayment can be deposited directly with the Government or in an escrowaccount, upon demand by the Government.

The estimated total non-Federal share of the total project costs is$12,500. It is anticipated that the county will need to invest $300annually to replace lost riprap during the 38-year project life.

20

SECTION 4 - RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the plan selected herein, to provide riprap slope pro-tection around the abutments of Davis County Bridge Site No. 3 located onSoap Creek, sec. 21, T. 70 N., R. 15 W., Marion Township, Iowa, be imple-mented as a Federal project. The bridge will be protected from damageswhich would jeopardize the integrity of the structure and cause itsfailure. The plan involves placing riprap around both abutments, extend-ing the riprap slightly beyond the sides of each -butment, and providingadditional upper end and toe protection. The project area consists of atotal of 200 linear feet of bankline protection, with an estimatedplacement of 1,800 tons of riprap at 1oth of the bridge abutments andwingwalls. The proposed project is economically feasible with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3.3. The total cost to the United States for constructionis estimated at $37,500.

oh .BrownColonel, U.S. ArmyDistrict Engineer

21

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

SECTION 14 EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTIONSOAP CREEK, COUNTY BRIDGE SITE NO. 3

DAVIS COUNTY, IOWA

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Rock IslandDistrict, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has assessed the environmentalimpacts of the above project. The intent of this project is to provideemergency bank protection around the bridge abutments and wingwalls of thebridge that crosses Soap Creek, in see. 21, T. 70 N., R. 15 W., MarionTownship, Davis County, Iowa. The project involves placing approximately1,800 tons of riprap on about 200 linear feet of bankline and around thewingwalls of both abutments.

This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the following factors:

a. The project would have only minor and short-term impacts on fishand wildlife resources and on water quality.

b. The proposed project would protect both bridge abutments fromfurther damages due to the eroding bankline and scouring at the back wallof the bridge support.

c. No significant social, economic, environmental, or cultural impactsare anticipated as a result of the proposed action.

The environmental review process indicates that the proposed action doesnot constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the environ-ment. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is notrequired. This determination may be reevaluated if warranted by laterdevelopments.

"1 ':99hnR~ Brown(date) Colonel, U.S. Army

District Engineer

-, . ... .

?6 (389 0tu w1I~*

-6 03 -7dLO A IO

0 -----

34

34KI A-

LOCLOCATIO

-4 B R I D G E IT E A

10 \-1. -y STTEO IW

7763

3 29- 9:*-

63 1AV5 0OA~, J

It -. ' --2AN

BIT4 /

- ~ TI

I- ~ ~ ~ I - __ __00_ ~~

I ~rff~

1- '. jr 8AJA/v6

IL/oerA

~~AVG

7 eeo7 -c.4IA' 8RD- 7z7(

AID: -q R ioIp-AN

SGTOa7R ' ETOI N

12PatETO/IA/ ~-5cro,.

a~~P -_ __ _ __

S RD.

sOcbi ouhgM Z~

OAI6 .WIM 4 Yt ,o~ez OWA C,455')' P Iaz p

ti4T 7Og

S COURi

/8"~ 8644A/Kc~ 0OPRIPMaP oav 6 1&'OD/M14 L4 YteR-

OR -To WA CL/SD'RIPAP

30OAP C~/

NOR~ Asum~wrDAVIS CoUNTY, -COWAWORH A~uT~NTCO&AN7V BRIO)4C SIT6*3

8UDC4E ,4BvTM,6-Aj -

PL 4TC J

oc

'In'PG - -

wc

inov CC 0

.A o - - - --c- 0

L 31

P00

C.,6

3 .

In I IN -6 LI6

F14!!qeqjd aua~aax3 BOPG

PLT -

A

p

P

E

N

PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCED

I

x

A

1State Historical Soaety of Iowa-*lowp The Historical Division of the Department of Cultural Affairs

April 2, 1990 In reply refer to:RC# 900326012

Mr. Dudley M. Hanson, P.E.Chief, Planning DivisionRock Island District Corps of EngineersClock Tower BuildingP.O. Box 2004Rock Island, IL 61204-2004

RE: COE - DAVIS COUNTY - EMERGENCY STREAMBANK PROTECTION - FOURBRIDGES: SEC. 21, T70N-Rl5W; SEC. 27, T69N-Rl5W; SEC. 24,T69N-RI4W; AND SEC. 27, T69N-Rl3W

Dear Mr. Hanson:

Based on the information you provided, we find that there are nohistoric properties which might be affected by the proposedundertaking. Therefore, we recommend project approval.

However, if the proposed project work uncovers an item or itemswhich might be of archeological, historical or architecturalinterest, or if important new archeological, historical orarchitectural data come to light in the project area, you shouldmake reasonable efforts to avoid or minimize harm to the propertyuntil the significance of the discovery can be determined.

Should you have any questions or if the office can be of furtherassistance to you, please contact the Review & Compliance programat 515-281-8743.

Sincerely,

Ka SimpsonArcheologist, Review and Compliance ProgramBureau of Historic Preservation

/mtm

D 402 Iowa Avenue El Capitol Complex El MontaukIowa City, Iowa 52240 Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Box 372(319) 335-3916 (515) 281-5111 Clermont, Iowa 52135

A- 1 (319) 423-7173

:TIME :DATECONVERSATION RECORD :0855 : 19 March 1990

TYPE ( )VISIT ( )CONFERENCE (x)TELEPHONE : ROUTING( )INCOMING :-----------(x)OUTGOING :NAME :INT

NAME CONTACTED :ORGANIZATION :TELEPHONE

Darryl Hayes :IA DNR :(515)281-8675 :

SUBJECT:Davis County, Iowa, Section 14 Projects,Environmental Coordination

SUMMARY:I called Mr. Hayes to discuss the above projects with

regard to fish and wildlife coordination.I described the locations and proposed actions of the

projects (riprapping with clean fill specific sections ofshoreline near or under four bridges that cross Soap Creekand Fox River.)

Mr. Hayes indicated his agency would have no objectionsto the projects as described.

ACTION REQUIRED

NAME OF PERSON :SIGNATURE :DATEDOCUMENTING CONVERSATION: < ,/ .:Joseph W. Jordan :4:: 19 March 1990

ACTION TAKENDocumentation to be used in evaluating projects for issuanceof Section 14 permits.

S NATURE :TITLE :DATE:Gen. Biologist :19 March 1990

271-101 CONVERSATION RECORD (12-76)

A-2

:TIME :DATECONVERSATION RECORD : 0835 : 19 March 1990

TYPE ( )VISIT ( )CONFERENCE (x)TELEPHONE : ROUTING( )INCOMING : -----------(x)OUTGOING :NAME :INT

NAME CONTACTED :ORGANIZATION :TELEPHONE:USFWS

Chuck Davis :Rock Island :(309)793-5800

SUBJECT:Davis County, Iowa, Section 14 Projects,Environmental Coordination

SUMMARY:I called Mr. Davis to discuss the above subject with

regard to environmental impacts and coordination under theEndangered Species Act and Fish and Wildlife CoordinationAct.

I described the location and proposed actions of theprojects (riprapping with clean fill specific sections ofshoreline near or under four bridges that cross Soap Creekand Fox River.)

Mr. Davis indicated his agency would have no objectionsto the projects as described.

ACTION REQUIRED

NAME OF PERSON :SIGNATURE :DATEDOCUMENTING CONVERSATION:Joseph W. Jordan :19 March 1990

ACTION TAKENDocumentation to be used in evaluating projects for issuanceof Section 14 permits.

SIGNATURE :TITLE :DATE.j - :Gen. Biologist : 19 March 1990

C50271-101(,/ CONVERSATION RECORD (12-76)

A-3

:TIME :DATECONVERSATION RECORD : 1330 : 20 March 1990

TYPE ( )VISIT ( )CONFERENCE (x)TELEPHONE : ROUTING( )INCOMING : -----------(x)OUTGOING :NAME :INT

:--- --

NAME CONTACTED :ORGANIZATION :TELEPHONE

Mike Bronowski :EPA Region 7 :(913)551-7042 :

SUBJECT:Davis County, Iowa, Section 14 Projects,Environmental Coordination

SUMMARY:I called Mr. Bronowski to discuss the above subject with

regard to environmental impacts and coordination under NEPAand Clean Air Act.

I described the locations and proposed actions of theprojects (riprapping with clean fill specific sections ofshoreline near or under four bridges that cross the FoxRiver or Soap Creek.)

Mr. Bronowski indicated his agency would have noobjections to the projects as described.

ACTION REQUIRED

NAME OF PERSON :SIAVATURE : =DATEDOCUMENTING CONVERSATIONtJoseph W. Jordan :20 March 1990

ACTION TAKENDocumentation to be used in evaluating projects for issuanceof Section 14 permits.

AGNATURE :TITLE :DATE:Gen. Biologist :20 March 1990

50271-1OlQ-/ CONVERSATION RECORD (12-76)

A-4

TELE1 IIONE W; I 2. 12

OFFICE OF

COUNTY HIGHWAY ENGINEERDAVIS COUNTY

BLOOMFIELD, IOWA 52537

SEPTEMBER 2 0, 9LETTER OF ASSURANCE

Colonel John R. BrownDistrict EngineerU.S. Army Engineer District,

Rock IslandClock Tower Building, P.O. Box 2004Rock Island, Illinois 61204-2004

Dear Colonel Brown:

Davis County, Iowa has reviewed the draft of the proposed Local CooperationAgreement covering streambank erosion control on the Soap Creekat bridge site(FHWA 135881)K.3'. The Agreement includes the followingobligations to be carried out by Davis County.

a. Provide, without cost to the Government, during the period ofconstruction, all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and dredged material disposalar;,as, and perform all relocations and alteration of buildings, utilities, highways,railroads, bridges (except railroad bridges), sewers, and related and specialfacilities determined by the Government to be necessary for construction of theproject.

b. Make a cash payment of not less than 5 percent of total project costsduring the period of construction, regardless of the value of the items in a. above.If the value of the items in a. above is less than 20 percent of total projectcosts, Davis County shall, during the period of construction, make such additionalcash payments as are necessary to bring its total contribution in cash and valueof lands, easements, rights-of-way, and utility and facility alterations and re-locations, to an amount equal to 25 percent of total project costs.

c. Pay all project costs in excess of the Federal statutory limitationof $500,000.

d. Hold and save the Government free from all damages arising from theconstruction, operation, and maintenance of the project, except for damages due tothe feult or negligence of the Government or its contractors.

e. Operate, maintain, replace, and rehabilitate the project or functionalelement thereof upon completion in accordance with regulations or directionsprescribed by the Government.

f. Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform RelocationAssistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646.approved January 2, 1971, in acquiring lands, easements, and rights-of-way for

A-5

construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of the project, and inform allaffected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection withsaid Act.

g. Comply with Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Public Law 88-352) and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant theretoand published in Part 300 of Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, as well as ArmyRegulation 600-7, entitled "Non-Discrimination on Basis of Handicap and Programs andActivities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army."

h. Participate in and comply with applicable Federal flood plain managementand flood insurance programs.

i. Prior to construction, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 221of Public Law 91-611, Davis County will enter into a contract with the Government wherebyDavis County will grant the Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in areasonable manner, upon land which Davis County owns or controls for access to the projectfor the purpose of inspection, and, if necessary, for the purpose of completing,operating, repairing, maintaining, replacing or rehabilitating the project. If aninspection shows that Davis County for any reason of failing to fulfill its obligationsunder the Agreement without receiving prior written approval from the Government, theGovernment will send a written notice to Davis County. If Davis County persists in suchfailure for 30 calendar days after receipt of notice, then the Government shall have aright to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon lands Davis Countyowns or controls for access to the project for the purpose of completing, operating,repairing, maintaining, replacing, or rehabilitating the project. No completion, operation,repair, maintenance, replacement, or rehabilitation by the Government shall operate torelieve Davis County of responsibility to meet its obligations as set forth in theAgreement, or to preclude the Government from pursuing any other remedy at law or equityto assure faithful performance pursuant to the Agreement.

Davis County is willing and able to pay its share of the total project costs.Sufficient funds are available within the Secondary Road Fund and the cash payment canbe deposited directly with the Government upon demand by the Government.

This is to advise that if the Definite Project Report for this project is approvedsubstantially in its present form as reviewed by Davis County and as submitted forapproval by the Corps of Engineers' higher authority, Davis County is willing, andlegally and financially able, to sign the referenced Local Cooperation Agrement whichincludes the obligations set forth above.

Sincerely,

Mike McClain, P.E.County Engineer

A-6

0 TAK"

United States Department of the Interior0I

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY M -

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS -230 S. DEARBORN, SUITE 3422

CHICAGO, ILLINO1S 60604

ER90/981December 3, 1990

Colonel John R. BrownDistrict EngineerU.S. Army Engineer District

Rock IslandClock Tower Building, P. 0. Box 2004Rock Island, Illinois 61204-2004

Dear Colonel Brown:

The Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Detailed ProjtctReport and Environmental Assessment, Section 14 Emergency StreambankProtection, Soap Creek, County Bridge Site No. 3, Davis County, Iowa, andoffers the following comments.

Mineral Resources

The Environmental Assessment does not mention mineral resources. Our records,however, indicate that sand and gravel, and stone (crushed) have been producedin Davis County, and subsurface geological formations could contain coal andgypsum deposits. Owing to the nature of the proposed work, however, webelieve that mineral resources would not be significantly affected. Wesuggest a statement to that effect be included in subsequent versions of thisdocument or other documents pertaining to this proposed project.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document.

Sincerely,

/Sheila Minor HuffRegional Environmental Office

A-7

State Historical Society of IowaThe Historical Division of the Department of Cultural Affairs

December 14, 1990 In reply refer to:RC# 900326012

Colonel John BrownU.S. Army District EngineerRock Island District Corps of EngineersClock Tower Building, P. 0. Box 2004Rock Island, IL 61204-2004

RE: COE - DAVIS COUNTY - EMERGENCY STREAM BANK PROTECTION INSEC. 21, T70N-Rl5W, SOAP CREEK, BRIDGE NO. 3 - DETAILEDPROJECT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Dear Mr. Brown:

We have received your environmental review of the abovereferenced document and concur with your Finding of NoSignificant Impact. No historic properties will be affected andwe recommend project approval.

Should you have any questions or if the office can be of furtherassistance to you, please contact the Review & Compliance programat 515-281-8743.

Sincerely,

Kathy GourleyArcheologist, Review and Compliance ProgramBureau of Historic Preservation

/mtm

A-8

0 402 Iowa Avenue [ Capitol Complex MontaukIowa Cit\, Iowa 52240 Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Box 372(319) 335:3916 (515) 281-5111 Clermont, iowa 52135

(319) 423-7173

DISTRIBUTION LIST

00zu

0 0 0 0 Wj w1- .- 04 2 >0

A0 A 23 A WZ Z z 01 IUJi in w tI93 (Au

z ) 0 (A (A ml >3 W u 00)1-4 N V) z u IW z L Z -.)_4 4A (A IA w 0 U W l w 0Z WU 0

w UO M Ujw W W > >1- 0~ W W 0iwu0 zo 0- 00 I-i V - 0 0 (3 Z I- Wi : -> ZZ zA~ F- - .9 -9 I- 00 1-1 oz z r A

Elc - Z Ain I-. I-I- AI A( A- 0 0. 11 w '-0. 0nWn 2 0 inI- iW U Z uJ z -I 0 > aZ 411 J 4E- 0UA 4 ui ww z W Z z u A4 1-0 0.0

134 1-1 Olz u W 0w in- in 4 A -m cc A -C I-C>1- WZ a W I- 9- N- (Al w4 (A- - 0.

I-' "X l I-I I" IAn w W - 0tM' ( - z w 0&L. z Zi I-Z 2 21 II I- N a. .m A fl A a J40 x~4 40 M1 :3 .9 410 Wa I-W -> A- 40w

S39 #-- 0) z F-1 1- IrJ x J4 -(n -V)O 0 m -4 inJ C An M I-Ir- > 21 z Z 0

>. z > - >4 A A ." I W 0 Zi ( 0 N- L w

z .31 WJ 0 0-I W0 0 0 OW " W- J02J - 00 to0 A Z 3 .9 A (4 Z N Z 0. : L CL0.0 U V M-

-w i m a 1 00 waIN ZO0 > I- > 1>4 x 40 u M- 0 x W :) I 0 0 IT 2 in

(A 0 1; 0 q 15 1;IM0) 0: 0- 0 WOO-.4 PAW &1~ *L Z a *ZN ZZ ZO Z IX ) -0 U- -4 0 00 a

rn I' uWU. p.44 M..f W'-0 0 " 4 I O0 M-' .~w- 1 0 f g 0 00 c' 0 M0i a 0 U M >.0 0-N 0 10 (

OA in w (A 0J4 0 J 0 mJ0 a w 41 M4 - m 0)o woo 1c 0.. 3WI 1-W Cd-- W.- 4-1.-40 W W" " A-0 Au w l-0 OO0N laIN w N

no J (. m x ~ u ~ I M1 J(1 DinOJJA U. 11 0>W~ A~-. WW -1 W AD to 'A N N " % 00.0 '-0 0

z 011.14 x2 40144 a V Z- a 2aI aA 0>0a 0.0 LL W00cdW- x 0 04 04i J J 00 '-40 .44 a0 0'- %L w1

u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -w3 00. U<Z U. D -X )C Z 022 MW4I ~ 06 l w W V IT 13 40 0 V)0 WO 04

1 W4 wW WWZ wI' WZ A3 -01- I-I- w P. I 0-i z j a Jam j 0- Jo J 0 - w .1 L2

z ~I ow 04 40 w 0 w 0.. 4w 0 0 AW 00I 011)2O 00A W A A% lL~ 41z A 1- tLa AL 40 A 4> 1-0.M-" I-- ". W-

P-4 0 0(0 0(00 0-in 00i 0 0- 0~I a i wowoin WOE-O 20 2-) Z 01 ZOW 2 u z(1 )z0 Z In ) A1 M4 ~0 4 trwL.) 0- 0I" ON 0N 2 - 00.0 "03 -=X '-03

w ?-0 x x O Ix 0 0 0

000 C4 c*zo

-~ 0Ix W

o I z uz WJ > # I

10 u >< U - a I- 0 > W

U' U IIxh#A . %A WJ uW 4W W - in u W

I-. I- cc OxUz- ZA WI U 0 -K D I- > .-. J

.3 U- a- 00 -1 u->V (A (A. (A ancl -

'4 U. 410 49 n WJ Ui ) W' 4j U aI-0 a aON Ox wo M U U- W

u W 0 4- - W W' I- ' 39 0 1.-< W &- U .- W( (Al U _g > 49

X Z 3 - <- 4 .- -C -a 4u... #-- W' V) i z >4 22 -C 4 -K V) Ax 00 .- .- a .- U .- D 0 z

a W- U' W 0 0' (A U) J Z- o a 0 ( 01 x W W' .-

ao K Z 4 VZ 4C 41- M - Z LL U'W - 0L WL '-. q( O I 44 -C U. &IL0 W' U L4- > 0 WO I- U- ) 4K

v 0 U *) 49 .- OZ .JU Ii (A aU. 0- "I- 3 -C 0 1

0 ~ * I-x* 1 OCl) < w 0 0> 3c U W 0 4->U ZN U3 N 0 N Wl

W u W W U. U "-.W a W 4- 00 1 -Uu z " -39 CK -0 X W WU a4 Ux.-.W >2 z ." U _j ccaI A- >. Z 0 WO WIL 0 W 00 > 41 - ZV O) (3 -&4. aZ 0CL4c 4 atI a - 49 g 0 a W 1C - - "~ "00 I- J W- C.U a UI- WO 42C > 04 W-I-

i Z ~W x z DO 0 *1 W C5 .. z 4 -. cc.K - 0W -0 W 0 00 41Z WD z -0 00 41W >U aZa ft- UU i 4 l Mb .- _ 0 lU.J 1- W 42 1-a 01f- 0.1 - U. aI IL!. 049 -ul U- -C 0 d z A z 0Wl 1-U L4 0) n 4i V 3 DWA 1-D U1 0 0'- a

U W 4i Z Wa O -K' M zto - > "-1 .- Zx W 1- 40u W - ".Z Ue .0 Wb W' 4l u 0 0.-U

Ml a 0 1.- u e U. N 0 a- -j u0 - Z- 1*1- WNWO.-W.0O Z4 ' 10 " X ?-- D4 -C ZWO M LL- a a 0

I 00.0 w 4 w 1- I I 42 z - 0 Mao x - " (30- I - c'-I X tLC M-4 Ix < -03 'D U 141 a 2Cw -U) * w 0

140o Z1- 0 0 -C V Z - 000 >1-N W a (0 <00( a a 0 WZ 44 C aN W) 0W 4Anx '-'CU U'N < W 41 - a2 0 -

x F1- a - - 17 0 > .-1 1-4 >210f W z 00d 1- - Z 1- 00 0.UZU ". U 0. 0 _44 ZOO 4 0 4 a I-. -MX -02 U I 0VIWO > -0 a.> k) W' .- - > :) DIL W 0- >0. m - W4 -U

m aI Z 2 20 In -2zaa.0 Ix mO.- 00" 4z > 0"0U Us->" -zz W(1Z J W - a rl-0 W4VI W 0 Z1 Dcz W .- < - Wltoo 1 0 u 0 00 4NU) VUW 41-> ID U) UM"s am".- CU

a at - UI - Im U u 0 to zUZ 401- U) VIU (A auU 0Z.-. 00)0 004 4 W Z 4 00"- OW- WS4 " -- WVj _j44 Z

#A -4> Q)2 -.U.I- X W OX"- UJO "-OU Us- a U> 0 W4U 440f42.." U'i4s- > Z U "-.0 tU.I 0 1- UZ - U aU (X z x-K#_0 W XUV - a4 <U -0 (A 0 0 W 044 a VI OWV 4wz owVI4 WI s- 0 1O-4 j 0 s-. " UJ - 1-7d 43 WOW)U a Z na"- -OZ

0 -C UI W 9 Z - 0 >02 -K0 W( 000 1-1 In i - W 3 3 WU-K=33 IL23 S U4 U- " &.4 1- 0 0 W.-s- CM<4 wnx UIL- Wu.u_0 0 0 2 a 4A 0 V a a Ur

2

zu

0.0

00 -0

u Q0 a

0 uU 0-W 0 W ~ W W W 1- CLL

w I a > > z2M w 0_ -C U0 a

>. 00 0U (D 0LI z- 0

1- z 0) Ia n CZC > 0 C) > T(

W I > W 02 1. a I _ I - U)W V) a 4C 00 00 UJ "0 -

I-0 00 40 (0W- #- 0.ZU) 4 A < 40 Z 0 > -(A a -.Ct - -

0 (A4 0) 0 1 04 4cM t Wq > WM to IL 0 . w4 . W4 0 to) V) I- D U)

O'_ U)0 a -0 0 4c a W.~~ - D U

1-0 0 03 ) 4U 1 41C M4 1-0 1- U M 00.- c a

1- . >) 0 W 0u 0. of- 0. ZC W-4 > W~0 WS 0 0 0 -C Wil M i) 0 I

M1 03 110 0 a- - Q) 01 U. 1) 0j>>0. I M0 0.W 0 a0 Z" 0 4 M xW M 03

M) cc W4 w C WO LU 00 00 w 4- 04 0 0>64 _ 0) O 0 0M 1-0 00 0_ -(A W4 U >_ <

0 4A- We 0 < - 0* 0 1-4 04 -4 1-

4 UU I)- CL0 IM - Lt U (7> a 3 > U) Z

1 1.-. () U) uJ C4 O q 1 0 - 64L0 0 43 u -4 N W0z ~ a - *U -W 00 40 VW U 3W> 0m -4o-ZO I4 O t

UJ - U -M 0o 1 z. 1- 1-C. U) U) 64- 01- J Ua. 040 WW 465 00 j1 0.4 104 WUJ 0 " <Z 0 1

K _ 1-0 0 ill UJU O" 1 ZO W U) U)

Ow a~l S 1 a JC t 0.0) 0~0 00 -C 0) Ix > ) i. c

In- 2- *0 a>4 ILC 3 ".L' .-.C 04 7W 01_0 0 =0 010 LU1-0 9UN 10 W1- CL w ow 00 uU. W .~ 0 A o) C'4 W--i

0.3 ) 14 >00 Mu4 .3 4111 -no 0 > 4 04 I 4 0on= CO We. ~0 2 ' )-~ 1 1' )I- 0 "39 - '-CA4 ZZ 3W W1- 2 -4C0 0 J1 0 40 >

0 1 0 042 c Oil Z-- A0U 1U 044-U W U) 00 00 0u- I .0f ) i_ 0 -.1 CW w611 00 64W A U 0 3 'A4 1-4 4' xw _ wUZ)- W -C Z N c1 0 C * J nw Z 0 C -j1 M 1-W

WD2 W - 4- 0 WIoo- MAC1- U)Z ~- 0m am 4 w 44 am4. 6-U)M a0 40. X0 > 0 00 J- 00 - 0 1 . Oi. u.

-4 10 14 4WWI 42 41-4 >4 44 3 22 3

lEA0 4

00

zuu

uj

> 0

z 0 .

I £IxaW MA 00

u z 0 .j 0MA MA > u t-n 0> (nE

ui 0 .4 A- IJ290 04 CL 1

ON 0 3 ;0. u

ce X M zz u

0 IL cc 0

z I. x M 0 C zuNKEn . . 0 Nn

Ili 1. 0 1- -1 AA Ni 4w0 -I'-l 1 £q 0E W~ - n ~ ceEn

I- u ZN >O "N It '-.1 Ixn N- I--4 0 W1 vEn 01N E 0 - 0 in

0 o" <0 0m 1-Eno *.M 0 -.9 vE E

w. 4 uA U4 £' >4 xW ZOU (A N N N N0

1 A " I'- . - .4 n-Y MA> > O 0 0o z

co c0 " 0 1-0 uA £0e ax zon' 0£ £M aA4 '4 mA-~ OMA .J J f-. 1 > 0.1 Wn 0 <O2.1 Z MA' " -' ".-'

j .. w 2w uW 41- "-M 21j Z MAW 4 4

f- U d Mi'. 0 Z I-~ _j " i*N CL £4 1-C 1-4EnIL WEA ELU t . v4 A 4 Ii I2

1>1E 00 p.. o.'. on on 0-z z 02 jxx J204'0 J" &&AZ -) U 0- 0

2i 00 >j 3 00 0 ..J "W 0. i ~ 1- '-1- 01-

00 0c 40 ="-- no 24 ==a OnN 10 40 40ou u a a CL MA x 2 cc£

4

I n0 - WMr. ztoL

r- 1 1 1

z h1-4e' l

0 4A

w -4 I I l z- In

z- ti l' Il< u000

E~Z~ ZZ~a